A Parenting & kids forum. ParentingBanter.com

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » ParentingBanter.com forum » alt.support » Child Support
Site Map Home Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Share vehicle, insurance expenses?



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #21  
Old August 16th 03, 10:59 PM
Moon Shyne
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Share vehicle, insurance expenses?


"gini52" wrote in message
...

"Moon Shyne" wrote in message
...


"gini52" wrote in message
...

"Moon Shyne" wrote
"Scott Ross" wrote
................
Considering a situation from the reverse angle is always an

interesting
exercise, and I agree that it is often quite useful. And from a

simple
standpoint, I would agree that "reasonable costs" associated with
necessary
driving (or maybe I should just say "necessary transportation" to
broaden
that topic a bit) are expenses which can be equitably shared.

I'm having difficulty with this one because of my fundamental

opposition
to
a 14-year-old driving without supervision.

Which is apparently legal where she resides?

It's difficult to work that into
the "reverse angle". I cannot yet conclude that this driving is
"necessary",

Yet without it, it would be difficult, if not impossible, for her to

take
part
in the extra-curricular activities. That's what you posted.

So the result of balking at her growing up, and doing something that's
apparently entirely legal where she lives, is that she is also then
prohibited
from taking part in the extra-curricular activities.

Perhaps if you offered to ferry her around to her extra curricular
activities?

and I would certainly not consider the new risk of harm to my

daughter
part
of a "reasonable cost", and that is the angle from which I've got to
consider this.

The risk of harm is going to be present no matter what age she is
permitted to
drive. I know this, I buried a 21-year old after a car accident.

There
is no
magical age that will protect them from risk.
==
But, there is common sense and common sense (at least my common sense)
dictates that 14 is too young to drive--
regardless of statute.


So why would 15, the age many states allow children to get learner's

permits, or
16, the age by which most states allow driving, be any more commonly

sensible?

There's nothing magical between 14 and 15, or 14 and 16, and for many

children,
common sense doesn't seem to sink in by the time they're 21 :-(

==
Exactly--Which is why I think the driving age should be at least 24 ;-). (Of
course, my ex disagreed with me and began driving lessons with my boys at
age 10.) More seriously, I met an older lady in my early college days who
told me that even though she worried all the time about her son's safety,
the worrying didn't keep him safe. She lost him due to a car accident when
he was 17.


My step-son was 3 months past his 21st birthday - single car accident, single
occupant to the car.

==
==




  #22  
Old August 16th 03, 10:59 PM
Moon Shyne
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Share vehicle, insurance expenses?


"gini52" wrote in message
...

"Moon Shyne" wrote in message
...


"gini52" wrote in message
...

"Moon Shyne" wrote
"Scott Ross" wrote
................
Considering a situation from the reverse angle is always an

interesting
exercise, and I agree that it is often quite useful. And from a

simple
standpoint, I would agree that "reasonable costs" associated with
necessary
driving (or maybe I should just say "necessary transportation" to
broaden
that topic a bit) are expenses which can be equitably shared.

I'm having difficulty with this one because of my fundamental

opposition
to
a 14-year-old driving without supervision.

Which is apparently legal where she resides?

It's difficult to work that into
the "reverse angle". I cannot yet conclude that this driving is
"necessary",

Yet without it, it would be difficult, if not impossible, for her to

take
part
in the extra-curricular activities. That's what you posted.

So the result of balking at her growing up, and doing something that's
apparently entirely legal where she lives, is that she is also then
prohibited
from taking part in the extra-curricular activities.

Perhaps if you offered to ferry her around to her extra curricular
activities?

and I would certainly not consider the new risk of harm to my

daughter
part
of a "reasonable cost", and that is the angle from which I've got to
consider this.

The risk of harm is going to be present no matter what age she is
permitted to
drive. I know this, I buried a 21-year old after a car accident.

There
is no
magical age that will protect them from risk.
==
But, there is common sense and common sense (at least my common sense)
dictates that 14 is too young to drive--
regardless of statute.


So why would 15, the age many states allow children to get learner's

permits, or
16, the age by which most states allow driving, be any more commonly

sensible?

There's nothing magical between 14 and 15, or 14 and 16, and for many

children,
common sense doesn't seem to sink in by the time they're 21 :-(

==
Exactly--Which is why I think the driving age should be at least 24 ;-). (Of
course, my ex disagreed with me and began driving lessons with my boys at
age 10.) More seriously, I met an older lady in my early college days who
told me that even though she worried all the time about her son's safety,
the worrying didn't keep him safe. She lost him due to a car accident when
he was 17.


My step-son was 3 months past his 21st birthday - single car accident, single
occupant to the car.

==
==




  #23  
Old August 16th 03, 11:20 PM
gini52
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Share vehicle, insurance expenses?


"Moon Shyne" wrote in message
...

"gini52" wrote in message
...

"Moon Shyne" wrote in message
...


"gini52" wrote in message
...

"Moon Shyne" wrote
"Scott Ross" wrote

........................
The risk of harm is going to be present no matter what age she is
permitted to
drive. I know this, I buried a 21-year old after a car accident.

There
is no
magical age that will protect them from risk.
==
But, there is common sense and common sense (at least my common

sense)
dictates that 14 is too young to drive--
regardless of statute.

So why would 15, the age many states allow children to get learner's

permits, or
16, the age by which most states allow driving, be any more commonly

sensible?

There's nothing magical between 14 and 15, or 14 and 16, and for many

children,
common sense doesn't seem to sink in by the time they're 21 :-(

==
Exactly--Which is why I think the driving age should be at least 24 ;-).

(Of
course, my ex disagreed with me and began driving lessons with my boys

at
age 10.) More seriously, I met an older lady in my early college days

who
told me that even though she worried all the time about her son's

safety,
the worrying didn't keep him safe. She lost him due to a car accident

when
he was 17.


My step-son was 3 months past his 21st birthday - single car accident,

single
occupant to the car.

==
I'm sorry to hear that.
==
==



  #24  
Old August 16th 03, 11:20 PM
gini52
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Share vehicle, insurance expenses?


"Moon Shyne" wrote in message
...

"gini52" wrote in message
...

"Moon Shyne" wrote in message
...


"gini52" wrote in message
...

"Moon Shyne" wrote
"Scott Ross" wrote

........................
The risk of harm is going to be present no matter what age she is
permitted to
drive. I know this, I buried a 21-year old after a car accident.

There
is no
magical age that will protect them from risk.
==
But, there is common sense and common sense (at least my common

sense)
dictates that 14 is too young to drive--
regardless of statute.

So why would 15, the age many states allow children to get learner's

permits, or
16, the age by which most states allow driving, be any more commonly

sensible?

There's nothing magical between 14 and 15, or 14 and 16, and for many

children,
common sense doesn't seem to sink in by the time they're 21 :-(

==
Exactly--Which is why I think the driving age should be at least 24 ;-).

(Of
course, my ex disagreed with me and began driving lessons with my boys

at
age 10.) More seriously, I met an older lady in my early college days

who
told me that even though she worried all the time about her son's

safety,
the worrying didn't keep him safe. She lost him due to a car accident

when
he was 17.


My step-son was 3 months past his 21st birthday - single car accident,

single
occupant to the car.

==
I'm sorry to hear that.
==
==



  #25  
Old August 17th 03, 12:25 AM
teachrmama
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Share vehicle, insurance expenses?


"Moon Shyne" wrote in message
...

"teachrmama" wrote in message
...

"Moon Shyne" wrote in message
...


"gini52" wrote in message
...

"Moon Shyne" wrote
"Scott Ross" wrote
................
Considering a situation from the reverse angle is always an

interesting
exercise, and I agree that it is often quite useful. And from a

simple
standpoint, I would agree that "reasonable costs" associated

with
necessary
driving (or maybe I should just say "necessary transportation"

to
broaden
that topic a bit) are expenses which can be equitably shared.

I'm having difficulty with this one because of my fundamental

opposition
to
a 14-year-old driving without supervision.

Which is apparently legal where she resides?

It's difficult to work that into
the "reverse angle". I cannot yet conclude that this driving is
"necessary",

Yet without it, it would be difficult, if not impossible, for her

to
take
part
in the extra-curricular activities. That's what you posted.

So the result of balking at her growing up, and doing something

that's
apparently entirely legal where she lives, is that she is also

then
prohibited
from taking part in the extra-curricular activities.

Perhaps if you offered to ferry her around to her extra curricular
activities?

and I would certainly not consider the new risk of harm to my

daughter
part
of a "reasonable cost", and that is the angle from which I've

got to
consider this.

The risk of harm is going to be present no matter what age she is
permitted to
drive. I know this, I buried a 21-year old after a car accident.

There
is no
magical age that will protect them from risk.
==
But, there is common sense and common sense (at least my common

sense)
dictates that 14 is too young to drive--
regardless of statute.

So why would 15, the age many states allow children to get learner's

permits, or
16, the age by which most states allow driving, be any more commonly

sensible?

There's nothing magical between 14 and 15, or 14 and 16, and for many

children,
common sense doesn't seem to sink in by the time they're 21 :-(

What it's looking like (and this is merely opinion) is that the dad is

having
more of a problem with his daughter growing up and reaching some of

those
landmark ages, rather than this being about driving - something tells

me
he'll
have the same issues with it in 2 years, when the daughter turns 16 as

well.

Whatever his reasons may be, Moon, do you think it fair for mom ans

stepdad
to go out, purchase the car, then call dad and say "Now you have to pay

half
of the expenses for a decision that you had not part in." Or do you

think
that the child support he is paying include transportation expenses?


This is why I asked him to reverse the situation - if he could get past

his
objections to her being legally old enough to drive, to have looked at the
situation in reverse, he might have come to the conclusion that both

parents
should (or should not) be helping with the costs.

Please try to understand - like anyone else on this board, I view things

through
the glasses of my experiences...... and I have an ex who has steadfastly

refused
to take part in any decision making, despite 5 years of letters and phone

calls
asking for input. So my view is that there's at least a *possibility*

that
we're looking at a parent like my ex, who refuses to take part in the

decision
making, criticizes the decisions made, despite having had every

opportunity to
take part in the decision making process, and then refuses to pay his

legally or
morally mandated share, on the grounds that he had no part in making the
decision.


So you do not see transportation expenses as part of the already-ordered
child support payment? It looks like he can just say "no--transportation
costs are covered by child support." I would be extremely upset if someone
decided to do something as expensive as a car--then wanted me to pay half
the ongoing expenses. If they asked first, I would say no--budget already
too tight. If they did it anyway, then demanded payment--nuts to 'em. If
he has refused to be part of the decision-making process, why would one even
think that he would be willing to pay part of the ongoing expenses? And why
should he have to? Would you buy a car for your kids, expecting that your
ex would pay half the expenses? Considering what you have been through with
him, would you expect to be successful at collecting? Would you even feel
justified in dumping that kind of expense on him?


  #26  
Old August 17th 03, 12:25 AM
teachrmama
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Share vehicle, insurance expenses?


"Moon Shyne" wrote in message
...

"teachrmama" wrote in message
...

"Moon Shyne" wrote in message
...


"gini52" wrote in message
...

"Moon Shyne" wrote
"Scott Ross" wrote
................
Considering a situation from the reverse angle is always an

interesting
exercise, and I agree that it is often quite useful. And from a

simple
standpoint, I would agree that "reasonable costs" associated

with
necessary
driving (or maybe I should just say "necessary transportation"

to
broaden
that topic a bit) are expenses which can be equitably shared.

I'm having difficulty with this one because of my fundamental

opposition
to
a 14-year-old driving without supervision.

Which is apparently legal where she resides?

It's difficult to work that into
the "reverse angle". I cannot yet conclude that this driving is
"necessary",

Yet without it, it would be difficult, if not impossible, for her

to
take
part
in the extra-curricular activities. That's what you posted.

So the result of balking at her growing up, and doing something

that's
apparently entirely legal where she lives, is that she is also

then
prohibited
from taking part in the extra-curricular activities.

Perhaps if you offered to ferry her around to her extra curricular
activities?

and I would certainly not consider the new risk of harm to my

daughter
part
of a "reasonable cost", and that is the angle from which I've

got to
consider this.

The risk of harm is going to be present no matter what age she is
permitted to
drive. I know this, I buried a 21-year old after a car accident.

There
is no
magical age that will protect them from risk.
==
But, there is common sense and common sense (at least my common

sense)
dictates that 14 is too young to drive--
regardless of statute.

So why would 15, the age many states allow children to get learner's

permits, or
16, the age by which most states allow driving, be any more commonly

sensible?

There's nothing magical between 14 and 15, or 14 and 16, and for many

children,
common sense doesn't seem to sink in by the time they're 21 :-(

What it's looking like (and this is merely opinion) is that the dad is

having
more of a problem with his daughter growing up and reaching some of

those
landmark ages, rather than this being about driving - something tells

me
he'll
have the same issues with it in 2 years, when the daughter turns 16 as

well.

Whatever his reasons may be, Moon, do you think it fair for mom ans

stepdad
to go out, purchase the car, then call dad and say "Now you have to pay

half
of the expenses for a decision that you had not part in." Or do you

think
that the child support he is paying include transportation expenses?


This is why I asked him to reverse the situation - if he could get past

his
objections to her being legally old enough to drive, to have looked at the
situation in reverse, he might have come to the conclusion that both

parents
should (or should not) be helping with the costs.

Please try to understand - like anyone else on this board, I view things

through
the glasses of my experiences...... and I have an ex who has steadfastly

refused
to take part in any decision making, despite 5 years of letters and phone

calls
asking for input. So my view is that there's at least a *possibility*

that
we're looking at a parent like my ex, who refuses to take part in the

decision
making, criticizes the decisions made, despite having had every

opportunity to
take part in the decision making process, and then refuses to pay his

legally or
morally mandated share, on the grounds that he had no part in making the
decision.


So you do not see transportation expenses as part of the already-ordered
child support payment? It looks like he can just say "no--transportation
costs are covered by child support." I would be extremely upset if someone
decided to do something as expensive as a car--then wanted me to pay half
the ongoing expenses. If they asked first, I would say no--budget already
too tight. If they did it anyway, then demanded payment--nuts to 'em. If
he has refused to be part of the decision-making process, why would one even
think that he would be willing to pay part of the ongoing expenses? And why
should he have to? Would you buy a car for your kids, expecting that your
ex would pay half the expenses? Considering what you have been through with
him, would you expect to be successful at collecting? Would you even feel
justified in dumping that kind of expense on him?


  #27  
Old August 17th 03, 01:33 AM
Bob Whiteside
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Share vehicle, insurance expenses?


"teachrmama" wrote in message
...

"Moon Shyne" wrote in message
...

"teachrmama" wrote in message
...

"Moon Shyne" wrote in message
...


"gini52" wrote in message
...

"Moon Shyne" wrote
"Scott Ross" wrote
................
Considering a situation from the reverse angle is always an
interesting
exercise, and I agree that it is often quite useful. And from

a
simple
standpoint, I would agree that "reasonable costs" associated

with
necessary
driving (or maybe I should just say "necessary transportation"

to
broaden
that topic a bit) are expenses which can be equitably shared.

I'm having difficulty with this one because of my fundamental
opposition
to
a 14-year-old driving without supervision.

Which is apparently legal where she resides?

It's difficult to work that into
the "reverse angle". I cannot yet conclude that this driving

is
"necessary",

Yet without it, it would be difficult, if not impossible, for

her
to
take
part
in the extra-curricular activities. That's what you posted.

So the result of balking at her growing up, and doing something

that's
apparently entirely legal where she lives, is that she is also

then
prohibited
from taking part in the extra-curricular activities.

Perhaps if you offered to ferry her around to her extra

curricular
activities?

and I would certainly not consider the new risk of harm to my
daughter
part
of a "reasonable cost", and that is the angle from which I've

got to
consider this.

The risk of harm is going to be present no matter what age she

is
permitted to
drive. I know this, I buried a 21-year old after a car

accident.
There
is no
magical age that will protect them from risk.
==
But, there is common sense and common sense (at least my common

sense)
dictates that 14 is too young to drive--
regardless of statute.

So why would 15, the age many states allow children to get learner's
permits, or
16, the age by which most states allow driving, be any more commonly
sensible?

There's nothing magical between 14 and 15, or 14 and 16, and for

many
children,
common sense doesn't seem to sink in by the time they're 21 :-(

What it's looking like (and this is merely opinion) is that the dad

is
having
more of a problem with his daughter growing up and reaching some of

those
landmark ages, rather than this being about driving - something

tells
me
he'll
have the same issues with it in 2 years, when the daughter turns 16

as
well.

Whatever his reasons may be, Moon, do you think it fair for mom ans

stepdad
to go out, purchase the car, then call dad and say "Now you have to

pay
half
of the expenses for a decision that you had not part in." Or do you

think
that the child support he is paying include transportation expenses?


This is why I asked him to reverse the situation - if he could get past

his
objections to her being legally old enough to drive, to have looked at

the
situation in reverse, he might have come to the conclusion that both

parents
should (or should not) be helping with the costs.

Please try to understand - like anyone else on this board, I view things

through
the glasses of my experiences...... and I have an ex who has steadfastly

refused
to take part in any decision making, despite 5 years of letters and

phone
calls
asking for input. So my view is that there's at least a *possibility*

that
we're looking at a parent like my ex, who refuses to take part in the

decision
making, criticizes the decisions made, despite having had every

opportunity to
take part in the decision making process, and then refuses to pay his

legally or
morally mandated share, on the grounds that he had no part in making the
decision.


So you do not see transportation expenses as part of the already-ordered
child support payment? It looks like he can just say "no--transportation
costs are covered by child support." I would be extremely upset if

someone
decided to do something as expensive as a car--then wanted me to pay half
the ongoing expenses. If they asked first, I would say no--budget already
too tight. If they did it anyway, then demanded payment--nuts to 'em. If
he has refused to be part of the decision-making process, why would one

even
think that he would be willing to pay part of the ongoing expenses? And

why
should he have to? Would you buy a car for your kids, expecting that your
ex would pay half the expenses? Considering what you have been through

with
him, would you expect to be successful at collecting? Would you even feel
justified in dumping that kind of expense on him?


I have to throw in the NCP father's perspective. It is a trap for fathers
to get sucked into decision making regarding higher than normal children
expenditures. While it is nice to be consulted, the bottom line is there is
an implied assumption that agreeing with the major expenditure equates to
agreeing to help pay for the major expenditure as an extraordinary need over
and above normal CS expenditures.

So my advice would be for the father to stick to his ground and make it very
clear the CS he pays already covers ALL child expenditures and it's up to
the CP mother to make appropriate decisions about how she allocates the CS
she receives to cover whatever child expenses she chooses.


  #28  
Old August 17th 03, 01:33 AM
Bob Whiteside
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Share vehicle, insurance expenses?


"teachrmama" wrote in message
...

"Moon Shyne" wrote in message
...

"teachrmama" wrote in message
...

"Moon Shyne" wrote in message
...


"gini52" wrote in message
...

"Moon Shyne" wrote
"Scott Ross" wrote
................
Considering a situation from the reverse angle is always an
interesting
exercise, and I agree that it is often quite useful. And from

a
simple
standpoint, I would agree that "reasonable costs" associated

with
necessary
driving (or maybe I should just say "necessary transportation"

to
broaden
that topic a bit) are expenses which can be equitably shared.

I'm having difficulty with this one because of my fundamental
opposition
to
a 14-year-old driving without supervision.

Which is apparently legal where she resides?

It's difficult to work that into
the "reverse angle". I cannot yet conclude that this driving

is
"necessary",

Yet without it, it would be difficult, if not impossible, for

her
to
take
part
in the extra-curricular activities. That's what you posted.

So the result of balking at her growing up, and doing something

that's
apparently entirely legal where she lives, is that she is also

then
prohibited
from taking part in the extra-curricular activities.

Perhaps if you offered to ferry her around to her extra

curricular
activities?

and I would certainly not consider the new risk of harm to my
daughter
part
of a "reasonable cost", and that is the angle from which I've

got to
consider this.

The risk of harm is going to be present no matter what age she

is
permitted to
drive. I know this, I buried a 21-year old after a car

accident.
There
is no
magical age that will protect them from risk.
==
But, there is common sense and common sense (at least my common

sense)
dictates that 14 is too young to drive--
regardless of statute.

So why would 15, the age many states allow children to get learner's
permits, or
16, the age by which most states allow driving, be any more commonly
sensible?

There's nothing magical between 14 and 15, or 14 and 16, and for

many
children,
common sense doesn't seem to sink in by the time they're 21 :-(

What it's looking like (and this is merely opinion) is that the dad

is
having
more of a problem with his daughter growing up and reaching some of

those
landmark ages, rather than this being about driving - something

tells
me
he'll
have the same issues with it in 2 years, when the daughter turns 16

as
well.

Whatever his reasons may be, Moon, do you think it fair for mom ans

stepdad
to go out, purchase the car, then call dad and say "Now you have to

pay
half
of the expenses for a decision that you had not part in." Or do you

think
that the child support he is paying include transportation expenses?


This is why I asked him to reverse the situation - if he could get past

his
objections to her being legally old enough to drive, to have looked at

the
situation in reverse, he might have come to the conclusion that both

parents
should (or should not) be helping with the costs.

Please try to understand - like anyone else on this board, I view things

through
the glasses of my experiences...... and I have an ex who has steadfastly

refused
to take part in any decision making, despite 5 years of letters and

phone
calls
asking for input. So my view is that there's at least a *possibility*

that
we're looking at a parent like my ex, who refuses to take part in the

decision
making, criticizes the decisions made, despite having had every

opportunity to
take part in the decision making process, and then refuses to pay his

legally or
morally mandated share, on the grounds that he had no part in making the
decision.


So you do not see transportation expenses as part of the already-ordered
child support payment? It looks like he can just say "no--transportation
costs are covered by child support." I would be extremely upset if

someone
decided to do something as expensive as a car--then wanted me to pay half
the ongoing expenses. If they asked first, I would say no--budget already
too tight. If they did it anyway, then demanded payment--nuts to 'em. If
he has refused to be part of the decision-making process, why would one

even
think that he would be willing to pay part of the ongoing expenses? And

why
should he have to? Would you buy a car for your kids, expecting that your
ex would pay half the expenses? Considering what you have been through

with
him, would you expect to be successful at collecting? Would you even feel
justified in dumping that kind of expense on him?


I have to throw in the NCP father's perspective. It is a trap for fathers
to get sucked into decision making regarding higher than normal children
expenditures. While it is nice to be consulted, the bottom line is there is
an implied assumption that agreeing with the major expenditure equates to
agreeing to help pay for the major expenditure as an extraordinary need over
and above normal CS expenditures.

So my advice would be for the father to stick to his ground and make it very
clear the CS he pays already covers ALL child expenditures and it's up to
the CP mother to make appropriate decisions about how she allocates the CS
she receives to cover whatever child expenses she chooses.


  #29  
Old August 17th 03, 03:10 AM
Moon Shyne
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Share vehicle, insurance expenses?


"Bob Whiteside" wrote in message
ink.net...

"teachrmama" wrote in message
...

"Moon Shyne" wrote in message
...

"teachrmama" wrote in message
...

"Moon Shyne" wrote in message
...


"gini52" wrote in message
...

"Moon Shyne" wrote
"Scott Ross" wrote
................
Considering a situation from the reverse angle is always an
interesting
exercise, and I agree that it is often quite useful. And from

a
simple
standpoint, I would agree that "reasonable costs" associated

with
necessary
driving (or maybe I should just say "necessary transportation"

to
broaden
that topic a bit) are expenses which can be equitably shared.

I'm having difficulty with this one because of my fundamental
opposition
to
a 14-year-old driving without supervision.

Which is apparently legal where she resides?

It's difficult to work that into
the "reverse angle". I cannot yet conclude that this driving

is
"necessary",

Yet without it, it would be difficult, if not impossible, for

her
to
take
part
in the extra-curricular activities. That's what you posted.

So the result of balking at her growing up, and doing something

that's
apparently entirely legal where she lives, is that she is also

then
prohibited
from taking part in the extra-curricular activities.

Perhaps if you offered to ferry her around to her extra

curricular
activities?

and I would certainly not consider the new risk of harm to my
daughter
part
of a "reasonable cost", and that is the angle from which I've

got to
consider this.

The risk of harm is going to be present no matter what age she

is
permitted to
drive. I know this, I buried a 21-year old after a car

accident.
There
is no
magical age that will protect them from risk.
==
But, there is common sense and common sense (at least my common

sense)
dictates that 14 is too young to drive--
regardless of statute.

So why would 15, the age many states allow children to get learner's
permits, or
16, the age by which most states allow driving, be any more commonly
sensible?

There's nothing magical between 14 and 15, or 14 and 16, and for

many
children,
common sense doesn't seem to sink in by the time they're 21 :-(

What it's looking like (and this is merely opinion) is that the dad

is
having
more of a problem with his daughter growing up and reaching some of

those
landmark ages, rather than this being about driving - something

tells
me
he'll
have the same issues with it in 2 years, when the daughter turns 16

as
well.

Whatever his reasons may be, Moon, do you think it fair for mom ans

stepdad
to go out, purchase the car, then call dad and say "Now you have to

pay
half
of the expenses for a decision that you had not part in." Or do you

think
that the child support he is paying include transportation expenses?

This is why I asked him to reverse the situation - if he could get past

his
objections to her being legally old enough to drive, to have looked at

the
situation in reverse, he might have come to the conclusion that both

parents
should (or should not) be helping with the costs.

Please try to understand - like anyone else on this board, I view things

through
the glasses of my experiences...... and I have an ex who has steadfastly

refused
to take part in any decision making, despite 5 years of letters and

phone
calls
asking for input. So my view is that there's at least a *possibility*

that
we're looking at a parent like my ex, who refuses to take part in the

decision
making, criticizes the decisions made, despite having had every

opportunity to
take part in the decision making process, and then refuses to pay his

legally or
morally mandated share, on the grounds that he had no part in making the
decision.


So you do not see transportation expenses as part of the already-ordered
child support payment? It looks like he can just say "no--transportation
costs are covered by child support." I would be extremely upset if

someone
decided to do something as expensive as a car--then wanted me to pay half
the ongoing expenses. If they asked first, I would say no--budget already
too tight. If they did it anyway, then demanded payment--nuts to 'em. If
he has refused to be part of the decision-making process, why would one

even
think that he would be willing to pay part of the ongoing expenses? And

why
should he have to? Would you buy a car for your kids, expecting that your
ex would pay half the expenses? Considering what you have been through

with
him, would you expect to be successful at collecting? Would you even feel
justified in dumping that kind of expense on him?


I have to throw in the NCP father's perspective. It is a trap for fathers
to get sucked into decision making regarding higher than normal children
expenditures.


Bull****. I would ask the ex if it was ok with him if son took part in
soccer......... and never asked him to pay one cent towards it. I paid it all.

Same for gymnastics, dance class, summer camp, and everything else.

While it is nice to be consulted, the bottom line is there is
an implied assumption that agreeing with the major expenditure equates to
agreeing to help pay for the major expenditure as an extraordinary need over
and above normal CS expenditures.


Bull****. That may be YOUR life.......... it isn't that way for everyone.


So my advice would be for the father to stick to his ground and make it very
clear the CS he pays already covers ALL child expenditures and it's up to
the CP mother to make appropriate decisions about how she allocates the CS
she receives to cover whatever child expenses she chooses.


Then dear old dad had damned well best *not* complain when he doesn't like the
mother's decisions, when he isn't paying jack **** towards it.





  #30  
Old August 17th 03, 03:10 AM
Moon Shyne
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Share vehicle, insurance expenses?


"Bob Whiteside" wrote in message
ink.net...

"teachrmama" wrote in message
...

"Moon Shyne" wrote in message
...

"teachrmama" wrote in message
...

"Moon Shyne" wrote in message
...


"gini52" wrote in message
...

"Moon Shyne" wrote
"Scott Ross" wrote
................
Considering a situation from the reverse angle is always an
interesting
exercise, and I agree that it is often quite useful. And from

a
simple
standpoint, I would agree that "reasonable costs" associated

with
necessary
driving (or maybe I should just say "necessary transportation"

to
broaden
that topic a bit) are expenses which can be equitably shared.

I'm having difficulty with this one because of my fundamental
opposition
to
a 14-year-old driving without supervision.

Which is apparently legal where she resides?

It's difficult to work that into
the "reverse angle". I cannot yet conclude that this driving

is
"necessary",

Yet without it, it would be difficult, if not impossible, for

her
to
take
part
in the extra-curricular activities. That's what you posted.

So the result of balking at her growing up, and doing something

that's
apparently entirely legal where she lives, is that she is also

then
prohibited
from taking part in the extra-curricular activities.

Perhaps if you offered to ferry her around to her extra

curricular
activities?

and I would certainly not consider the new risk of harm to my
daughter
part
of a "reasonable cost", and that is the angle from which I've

got to
consider this.

The risk of harm is going to be present no matter what age she

is
permitted to
drive. I know this, I buried a 21-year old after a car

accident.
There
is no
magical age that will protect them from risk.
==
But, there is common sense and common sense (at least my common

sense)
dictates that 14 is too young to drive--
regardless of statute.

So why would 15, the age many states allow children to get learner's
permits, or
16, the age by which most states allow driving, be any more commonly
sensible?

There's nothing magical between 14 and 15, or 14 and 16, and for

many
children,
common sense doesn't seem to sink in by the time they're 21 :-(

What it's looking like (and this is merely opinion) is that the dad

is
having
more of a problem with his daughter growing up and reaching some of

those
landmark ages, rather than this being about driving - something

tells
me
he'll
have the same issues with it in 2 years, when the daughter turns 16

as
well.

Whatever his reasons may be, Moon, do you think it fair for mom ans

stepdad
to go out, purchase the car, then call dad and say "Now you have to

pay
half
of the expenses for a decision that you had not part in." Or do you

think
that the child support he is paying include transportation expenses?

This is why I asked him to reverse the situation - if he could get past

his
objections to her being legally old enough to drive, to have looked at

the
situation in reverse, he might have come to the conclusion that both

parents
should (or should not) be helping with the costs.

Please try to understand - like anyone else on this board, I view things

through
the glasses of my experiences...... and I have an ex who has steadfastly

refused
to take part in any decision making, despite 5 years of letters and

phone
calls
asking for input. So my view is that there's at least a *possibility*

that
we're looking at a parent like my ex, who refuses to take part in the

decision
making, criticizes the decisions made, despite having had every

opportunity to
take part in the decision making process, and then refuses to pay his

legally or
morally mandated share, on the grounds that he had no part in making the
decision.


So you do not see transportation expenses as part of the already-ordered
child support payment? It looks like he can just say "no--transportation
costs are covered by child support." I would be extremely upset if

someone
decided to do something as expensive as a car--then wanted me to pay half
the ongoing expenses. If they asked first, I would say no--budget already
too tight. If they did it anyway, then demanded payment--nuts to 'em. If
he has refused to be part of the decision-making process, why would one

even
think that he would be willing to pay part of the ongoing expenses? And

why
should he have to? Would you buy a car for your kids, expecting that your
ex would pay half the expenses? Considering what you have been through

with
him, would you expect to be successful at collecting? Would you even feel
justified in dumping that kind of expense on him?


I have to throw in the NCP father's perspective. It is a trap for fathers
to get sucked into decision making regarding higher than normal children
expenditures.


Bull****. I would ask the ex if it was ok with him if son took part in
soccer......... and never asked him to pay one cent towards it. I paid it all.

Same for gymnastics, dance class, summer camp, and everything else.

While it is nice to be consulted, the bottom line is there is
an implied assumption that agreeing with the major expenditure equates to
agreeing to help pay for the major expenditure as an extraordinary need over
and above normal CS expenditures.


Bull****. That may be YOUR life.......... it isn't that way for everyone.


So my advice would be for the father to stick to his ground and make it very
clear the CS he pays already covers ALL child expenditures and it's up to
the CP mother to make appropriate decisions about how she allocates the CS
she receives to cover whatever child expenses she chooses.


Then dear old dad had damned well best *not* complain when he doesn't like the
mother's decisions, when he isn't paying jack **** towards it.





 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Criminal medical CAM at Hawai'i's John A Burns School of Medicine Todd Gastaldo Pregnancy 0 November 25th 03 03:04 AM
FRONTLINE FIX (now one for babies, Raney?) Todd Gastaldo Pregnancy 1 November 7th 03 05:47 AM
Vagina-related insurance fraud (Dan Fitz. at The Hartford, you're removed) Todd Gastaldo Pregnancy 0 November 1st 03 05:20 PM
The largest insurance fraud (medical birth) Todd Gastaldo Pregnancy 0 October 29th 03 10:48 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 10:21 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 ParentingBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.